DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 21 OF 2016

Santu Sarkar,

S/O- Sachi Dulal Sarkar,

RO: Belpahar( Station Para),PO/PS: Belpahar, 

Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha, Pin-768 217…………….….………………Complainant.

Versus

1. The SBI General Insurance Company  Ltd,

“Nataraj” 101, 201 & 301,

Junction of Western Express Highway & Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri (East), Mumbai – 400 0069.

2. The Branch Manager,

The SBI General Insurance Company Ltd,

Branch Code- 00030,

Praful Tower, Second Floor, Plot No. 184(P),

Panposh Road, Rourkela, 769 004 ( Odisha).……..…………………..Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                  Shri P.R.Singhdeo, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1 & 2                    Shri B.N.Dutta, Adv &. Associates.

Date of Order: 16.11.2016

Present  

                                                                                    1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                                                   2. Shri S.K.Ojha, Member.

Shri S. K. Ojha, Member: - The brief facts of this complainant’s case is that, the complainant is the registered owner of one heavy vehicle bearing No. OR-23F-6363, being financed by Srei Equipment Finance INT, BBSR and got it’s insured with the O.P.No.2 valid from dtd. 30.07.2015 to 29.07.2018 mid night.  The IDV value of the said vehicle was Rs.19,33,308/- only.  On dtd. 25.08.2015 the insured vehicle met with an accident at Bhawanipali under Jujumura Police Station. The fact of accident was intimated to the O.Ps. Insurance company and thereafter intimated to IIC, Jujumura Police Station.  At the time of accident, one Rajesh Bhainsal was driving the vehicle.  A claim was lodged bearing claim No. 198204 along with all the relevant documents and requisites required by the O.Ps Insurance company.  The complainant filed estimated cost of repairing for amount of Rs.16,48,129/- only but incurred expenses of Rs.8,27,701/- only.  After incident, the O.Ps appointed Surveyor and assessed the loss but the  O.Ps did not supplied the Surveyor Report and repudiated the claim on dt.27.02.2016, hence this case.

            The O.Ps. Insurance company filed written version admitting the fact of insurance and submitted that at the time of accident of vehicle one Mubarak Ansari was driving the vehicle without having valid and effective driving license and the complainant has violated the policy conditions.  The O.Ps have appointed a surveyor to assess the loss but the surveyor has not yet submitted his report.  Denying in any deficiency in service the O.Ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.  

Heard from the parties, gone through the case record and documents available. The O.Ps did not challenge on the incident of accident held on dtd. 25.08.2015 so also within the period of validity of insurance rather opposed on the fact of driver on his validity and effectiveness of driving license at the time of accident.  The O.Ps. submitted that one Mubarak Ansari was driving the vehicle in question at the time of accident who had not valid and effective driving license but failed to file any such document proving on the same, rather as per the complainant, one Rajesh Kumar Bhainsal was driving the said vehicle who has valid and effective driving license bearing No. OR-2320050002237 valid up to dt.09.03.2017, the fact of which is also supported by the extract of the Station Diary Entry dtd. 25.08.2015 issued by the concerned Inspector In Charge, Jujomura PS. Regarding quantum of expenditures  incurred in repairing of the vehicle the complainant has filed just an estimate of Rs.16,48,129/- only but failed to filed any such document revealing the amount of Rs.8,27,701/- only as stated on the complaint petition.  At the same time O.Ps. also failed to file the Surveyor’ s Report to know the exact figure of expenditures which the complainant is eligible to get.

However, the fact of accident of vehicle cannot be denied as it is occurred within the period of validity of insurance, duly intimated to concerned Police Station and to the O.Ps. and insurance claimed within stipulated period of time, thus the complainant is eligible to get the insurance claim amount.  The O.Ps. are also duty bound to settle the insurance claim by performing proper surveying the incidence but failed to do so as such indicating clear deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps.     

As per the above mentioned observations and analysis this Hon’ble Forum allows the complaint petition with directions to the O.Ps to settle the insurance claim of complainant regarding vehicle Regn. No. OR-23F-6363 with legitimate insurance claim settlement value, within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order

Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 16^th  day of November, 2016, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.

                                                                            I Agree.

                                        .

                                                                       S.L.Behera, President                 S.K.Ojha, Member.                                                                                                                                                              Dictated and corrected by me.

                                                   S.K. Ojha Member